I want to draw an analogy with fever. Fever is a "rational" (that is, both effective, and intended) response of the body to infection. The body raises the set point of its thermostat, because the invading bugs are less able to survive the elevated temperature than the organism that they are trying to invade.
But you can still die of a fever.
However, what I have read of depression (of which I have no personal experience) suggests that if their "ecological" hypothesis is true, clinical depression is analogous not to fever in general, but to the end stages of a failed fever defence -- not simply an adaptive response to stress, but the defeat of that response by the magnitude of the stress, and the collateral damage.
Since there are intelligent people here who follow the topic of evolutionary psychology, I'd like to hear opinions about some research from 2009. Particularly if this idea seems reasonable or not, but possibly other opinions that people might have about it.
The idea is a variation on one that's somewhat popular here: that some conditions usually regarded as mental illnesses (Asperger's for example) are beneficial, even adaptive. But the condition in question now is depression. Briefly, the argument is that depression, at least when it is a response to stimuli and not a permanent feature, can have the useful effect of encouraging more rational thought when this is particularly important, even at the cost of quality of life, and that this is adaptive.
Links: a Scientific American article, a journal article (which I haven't read, behind a $12 paywall). Here's the abstract of the journal article:
The full journal citation is Andrews, Paul W., and Thomson Jr., J. Anderson; July 2009; Psychological Review 116 (3), 620–654; doi 10.1037/a0016242.